IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legalized if the necessary application procedures and building regulations are not followed, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent in such matters.

JUDGMENT :

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1. The above three mandamus appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 15.12.2022 whereby WPA No. 35543 of 2013 (writ petition filed by Sonali Kumar) and WPA No. 4431 of 2019 (writ petition filed by Sipra Mandal) were, in effect, dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court.

2. The appellant Sonali Kumar had earlier filed writ petitions alleging that her contiguous land owner Smt. Sipra Mondal had raised unauthorized construction on her land without obtaining sanction from the concerned authority. In previous writ petitions the Hon’ble High Court had directed the Howrah Zilla Parishad to take steps against the illegal and unauthorized construction made by the respondent no. 6, Smt. Sipra Mondal and the authority was further directed to demolish such unauthorized construction of Smt. Sipra Mondal. However, by filing another writ petition the said Sipra Mondal alleged that the appellant Sonali Kumar and her husband also raised unauthorized construction in their property without obtaining proper sanction plan. In an appropriate proceeding the Howrah Zilla Parishad was directed to take necessary action in respect of both the constructions in accordance with law if they were found to be unauthorized. Accordingly, the Authority issued demolition notices to both the parties mentioned above and directed them to cause self demolition otherwise, the law will take its own course.

3. In the present round of litigation the appellant, Sonali Kumar has come up with the instant writ petition stating that the notice for demolition issued by the Municipal Authority is, in fact, a counter blast to the steps taken against Sipra Mondal at the instance of the appellant Sonali Kumar. The appellant has argued that initially the appellant and her husband owned two contiguous plots respectively and both of them constructed buildings thereon after obtaining relevant sanctioned plans. However, for sake of convenient use, they amalgamated both the properties and thereafter, made certain additions and alterations after executing a deed of amalgamation. The factum of amalgamation as well as the construction made were duly reported to the Panchayat Authority but as they did not approve or reject the ‘as made plan’, the plan was deemed to have been sanctioned after expiry of 30 days from the date of submission of such plan in view of Rule 30 of West Bengal Panchayet (Gram Panchayet Rules, 1981).

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ghosh, the learned Trial Judge did not consider this fact properly. The rules have specifically mentioned that an applicant can file ‘as made plan’ even after construction was over and by virtue of such provision, the appellant submitted the said plan which is called ‘as made plan’ before the authority. Such provisions of the Rule empower the appellant to file ‘as made plan’ after construction is over, and as such there is no illegality committed on the part of the appellant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that initially only the construction of the respondent no. 6 was ordered to be demolished but the concerned authority has issued notices to the present appellant and her husband, being instigated by the respondent no. 6, to remove the alleged unauthorized construction in the amalgamated plot of the appellant and her husband. The learned counsel also pointed out that a copy of the said demolition notice was also marked to the respondent no. 6, Sipra Mondal which shows that such action against the appellants was taken at the instance of the respondent no. 6, who is a politically influential person.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that dismissal of the writ petitions gives rise to several questions of law to be decided in this appeal.

I. Whether the amalgamated revised plan dated 22.05.2006 could be cancelled by the Zilla Parishad?

II. Whether Rule 30 of the West Bengal Panchayet (Gram Panchayet Administration) Rules, 2004 (